Filed under: Resource Wars, War | Tags: dod, military, obama, penatgon, qdr, War
An ever increasing defense budget clearly demonstrates the priorities of the U.S government/military. Freedom of movement and the ability to engage multiple enemies on multiple fronts will characterize warfare in 2010 and beyond. The disingenuous demagogue Obama had promised to end these type of conflicts, yet more than a year after his election we are expanding our presence aggressively in several new areas of operation and are continuing the derided policies of the Bush administration. Will this ever end?
Matthew Berger: America’s “War without Borders”
WASHINGTON – A report and budget request from the U.S. Defense Department released Monday reveal both new and old priorities for President Barack Obama’s Pentagon.
Strategically, the military recognizes new, non-traditional threats ranging from failed states to cyber-warfare to climate change. But there is little change in the military spending habits of the Obama Pentagon versus that of his predecessor.
The new Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressionally mandated report on the direction of U.S. national security strategy, marks several major breaks from past reports. Whereas previous QDRs have had at their heart a strategy in which the country is able to fight two separate conventional wars, Monday’s report shifts the focus to multiple and diffuse simultaneous threats.
“We have learned through painful experience that the wars we fight are rarely the wars we plan,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters at the Pentagon Monday afternoon.
New threats require new responses, and the report emphasizes having increased numbers of special forces, drones and helicopters as well as preparing for conflicts that take place in the realms of counterinsurgencies and cyberspace.
“Although it is a manmade domain, cyberspace is now as relevant a domain for DoD activities as the naturally occurring domains of land, sea, air, and space,” the report notes.
Continue reading
Filed under: China / SE Asia, The Pacific, War | Tags: asia, dpj, hatoyama, japan, ldp, obama, okinawa, War
The question of U.S/Japan relations becomes an interesting consideration for U.S war designs and power projection in Asia. Will the new Japanese regime reverse it trend towards a U.S “client state” or will this inequitable relationship which forces Japanese to finance U.S operations continue?
Gavan McCormack: Obama vs Hatoyama: The making of an unequal, unconstitutional, illegal, colonial and deceitful US-Japan agreement.
Elections at the end of August gave Japan a new government, headed by Hatoyama Yukio. In electing him and his Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the Japanese people, like the American people less than a year earlier, were opting for change – a new relationship with both Asia and the US, including a much more equal one with the latter. Remarkably, however, what followed on the part of the Obama administration has been a campaign of unrelenting pressure to block any such change.
The Obama administration has targeted in particular the Hatoyama desire to re-negotiate the relationship with the United States so as to make it equal instead of dependent. Go back, it seems to be saying, to the golden days of “Sergeant-Major Koizumi” (as George W. Bush reportedly referred to the Japanese Prime Minister) when compliance was assured and annual US policy prescriptions (“yobosho”) were received in Tokyo as holy writ; forget absurd pretensions of independent policies.
The core issue has been the disposition of American military presence in Okinawa and the US insistence that Hatoyama honour an agreement known as the Guam Treaty.
The Guam Treaty
The “Guam International Agreement” is the US-Japan agreement signed by Secretary Hillary Clinton and Japanese Foreign Minister Nakasone Hirofumi in February and adopted as a treaty under special legislation in May 2009, in the first days of the Obama administration. Support for the Aso government in Japan was collapsing and the incoming Obama administration moved urgently to extract formal consent to its plans in such a way as to ensure that any such agreement would bind any subsequent Japanese government.
8,000 Marines and their 9,000 family members were to be relocated from Okinawa to Guam, and the US marine base at Futenma would be transferred to Henoko in Nago City in Northern Okinawa, to a new base to be built by Japan. The Japanese government would also pay $6.09 billion towards the Guam transfer cost ($2.8 billion of it in cash in the current financial year). [1] The effect in Okinawa would be that the US military would vacate some of its larger bases in the densely populated south but concentrate and expand those in the north of the island.
These matters (save for the detailed financial clauses) had all been resolved by a previous agreement, nearly four years earlier under Koizumi – the October 2005 agreement on “US-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future” reconfirmed by the May 2006 “United States-Japan Roadmap for realignment Implementation.” [2] Now, to compel compliance, Article 3 of the new Agreement declared that “The Government of Japan intends to complete the Futenma replacement facility as stipulated in the Roadmap [i.e. by 2014]” even though the parties had virtually given up hope that that was possible in the face of entrenched Okinawan opposition. [3]
The Agreement was one of the first acts of a popular, “reforming” US administration and one of the last of a Japanese regime in fatal decline after half a century of LDP rule. It set in unusually clear relief the relationship between the world’s No 1 and No 2 economic powers. The Agreement is worthy of close attention because, as analysed below, it was unequal, unconstitutional, illegal, colonial and deceitful
Filed under: Latin America, War | Tags: air force, chavez, colombia, obama, uribe, venezuela, War
While the media spins this story into another tale of irrational Venezuelan bluster, quietly preparations are beginning for a potential conflict in Latin America. Will this be a limited conflict between Venezuela and Colombia, or will the U.S use its new found presence in the region as “an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America ?” The U.S military considers Palanquerno such an asset for potential military operations that in the Air Force Global en Route Strategy document, it is treated as a vital defense against “security and stability [that] is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies…and anti-US governments.”
Obama and Uribe look deeply into each others eyes to reveal the appropriate military strategy.
BBC: Chavez steps up Colombia war talk
Eva Golinger: Official US Air Force Document Reveals the True Intentions Behind the US-Colombia Military Agreement
“…It’s not difficult to imagine which governments in South America are considered by Washington to be “anti-US governments”. The constant aggressive declarations and statements emitted by the State and Defense Departments and the US Congress against Venezuela and Bolivia, and even to some extent Ecuador, evidence that the ALBA nations are the ones perceived by Washington as a “constant threat”. To classify a country as “anti-US” is to consider it an enemy of the United States. In this context, it’s obvious that the military agreement with Colombia is a reaction to a region the US now considers full of “enemies”…”
Filed under: Latin America, War | Tags: alba, castro, colombia, obama, south america, us, venezuela, War
Fidel Castro: The Annexation of Colombia to the U.S
Anyone with some information can immediately see that the sweetened ‘Complementation Agreement for Defense and Security Cooperation and Technical Assistance between the Governments of Colombia and the United States’ signed on October 30, and made public in the evening of November 2, amounts to the annexation of Colombia to the United States.
The agreement puts theoreticians and politicians in a predicament. It wouldn’t be honest to keep silence now and speak later on sovereignty, democracy, human rights, freedom of opinion and other delights, when a country is being devoured by the empire as easy as lizards catch flies. This is the Colombian people; a self-sacrificing, industrious and combative people. I looked up in the hefty document for a digestible justification and I found none whatsoever.
Of 48 pages with 21 lines each, five are used to philosophize on the background of the shameful absorption that turns Colombia into an overseas territory. They are all based on the agreements signed with the United States after the murder of the distinguished progressive leader Jorge Eliecer Gaitan on April 9, 1948, and the establishment, on April 30, 1948, of the Organization of American States debated by the foreign ministers of the hemisphere meeting in Bogota, with the US as the boss, during the dramatic days when the Colombian oligarchy cut short the life of that leader thus paving the way to the onset of the armed struggle in that country.
The Agreement on Military Assistance between the Republic of Colombia and the United States of April 1952; the one related to Army, Naval and Air Missions from the US Forces, signed on October 7, 1974; the 1988 UN Convention against the Illegal Trafficking of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances; the 2000 UN Convention against Organized Transnational Delinquency; the 2001 Security Council Resolution 1373 and the Inter-American Democratic Charter; the Democratic Security and Defense Policy resolution and others referred to in the abovementioned document, none of them can justify turning a 713,592.5 square miles country located in the heart of South America into a US military base. Colombia’s territory is 1.6 times that of Texas, the second largest state of the Union taken away from Mexico and later used as a base to conquer with great violence more than half of that country.
On the other hand, over 59 years have passed since Colombian soldiers were sent to distant Asia, in October 1950, to fight alongside the Yankee troops against Chinese and Korean combatants. Now, the empire intends to send them to fight against their brothers in Venezuela,Ecuador and other Bolivarian and ALBA countries, to crush the Venezuelan Revolution as they tried to do with the Cuban Revolution in April 1961.
For more than one and a half year before the invasion of Cuba, the Yankee administration fostered, armed and used counterrevolutionary bandits in the Escambray the same way it is now using the Colombian paramilitary forces against Venezuela.
At the time of the Giron [Bay of Pigs] attack, the Yankee B-26 aircrafts piloted by mercenaries operated from Nicaragua. Their fighter planes were brought to the theater of operations in an aircraft carrier and the invaders of Cuban descent who landed in our territory were escorted by US warships and by the American marines. This time their war equipment and troops will be in Colombia posing a threat not only toVenezuela but to every country in Central and South America.
It is really cynical to claim that the infamous agreement is necessary to fight drug-trafficking and international terrorism. Cuba has shown that there is no need of foreign troops to prevent the cultivation and trafficking of drugs and to preserve domestic order, even though the United States –the mightiest power on Earth—has promoted, financed and armed the terrorists who for decades have attacked the Cuban Revolution.
The preservation of domestic peace is a basic prerogative of every government and the presence of Yankee troops in any Latin American country to do it on their behalf constitutes a blatant foreign interference in their internal affairs that will inevitably elicit the peoples’ rejection.
A simple reading of the document shows that not only the Colombian airbases will be in the Yankees’ hands but also the civilian airports and ultimately any facility that may be useful to their armed forces. The radio space is also available to that country with a different culture and other interests that have nothing in common with those of the Colombian people.
The US Armed Forces will have exceptional prerogatives.
The occupants can commit any crime anywhere in Colombia against Colombian families, property and laws and still be unaccountable to the country’s authorities. Actually, they have taken diseases and scandalous behavior to many places like the Palmerola military base inHonduras. In Cuba, when they came to visit the neo-colony, they sat astride the neck of Jose Marti’s statue, in the capital’s Central Park. The limit set with regards to the total number of soldiers can be modified as requested by the United States, and with no restriction whatsoever. The aircraft carriers and warships visiting the naval bases given to them can take as large a crew as they choose, and this can be thousands in only one of their large aircraft carriers.
The Agreement, which will remain in force for successive 10-year periods, can’t be modified until the end of every period, with a one-year prior notice. What will the United States do if an administration as that of Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush sr. or Bush jr., and others like them, is asked to leave Colombia? The Yankees have ousted scores of governments in our hemisphere. How long would a government last in Colombiaif it announced such intentions?
Now, the politicians in Latin America are faced with a sensitive issue: the fundamental duty of explaining their viewpoints on the annexation document. I am aware that what is happening in Honduras at this decisive moment draws the attention of the media and the foreign ministers of this hemisphere, but the Latin American governments cannot overlook the extremely serious and transcendental events taking place in Colombia.
I have no doubts about the reaction of the peoples; they will be sensitive to the dagger being shoved deep inside them, especially inColombia: They will oppose! They will never cave in to such ignominy!
Today, the world is facing serious and pressing problems. The entire humanity is threatened by climate change. European leaders are almost begging on their knees for some kind of agreement in Copenhagen that will prevent the catastrophe. They practically concede that theSummit will fail to meet the objective of reaching an agreement that can drastically reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and promise to continue struggling to attain it before 2012; however, there is a true risk that an agreement cannot be reached until it is too late.
The Third World countries are rightly claiming from the richest and most developed nations hundreds of billion dollars a year to pay for the climate battle.
Does it make sense for the United States government to invest time and money in building military bases in Colombia to impose on our peoples their hateful tyranny? Along that path, if a disaster is already threatening the world, a greater and faster disaster is threatening the empire and it would all be the consequence of the same exploiting and plundering system of the planet.
Filed under: Central Asia, China / SE Asia, Russia / Caucacus, War | Tags: china, india, iran, NATO, nuclear, obama, russia, us, venezuela, War
The force of NATO’s operational doctrine of continual expansion and disruption of opposing forces is now extending their presence into Asia. The battles for the favor of India and the so-called “string of pearls” around the eastern coast of China have set the stage for potential future conflicts. Now, with deepening ties to Western power, India represents another potential wedge for the U.S/NATO, bent on establishing strategic positions on the periphery of their two main economic and political rivals–China and Russia. Historical and geographical considerations also compel the Indians in their current position, to adopt a policy of “superalignment” with the West as opposed to “counteralignment”; represented by the Russia, China, Iran and the Bolivarian alignment based around Venezuela.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Geo-Strategic Chessboard: War Between India and China?
Here is another great article from Rick Rozoff at ‘Stop NATO’. This also discusses U.S/NATO presence in Asia being used as a bulwark against Russia and China in a variety of arenas.
Rick Rozoff: Dangerous Crossroads: U.S. Expands Asian NATO Against China, Russia
Here is an article from Foreign Affairs in 2006 which suggests that the U.S could use preemptive first strikes against the arsenals of Russia and China.
“For four decades, relations among the major nuclear powers have been shaped by their common vulnerability, a condition known as mutual assured destruction. But with the U.S. arsenal growing rapidly while Russia’s decays and China’s stays small, the era of MAD is ending – and the era of U.S. nuclear primacy has begun.”
“It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.”
The new Japanese government is confirming the suspicions of many that they will likely be moving away from the U.S sphere of influence. Is this the first move in a larger political shift in Asia?
The Times: Japan to withdraw ships from Afghanistan support role
Japan will withdraw its naval ships from their support role in the war in Afghanistan, in the first concrete sign of the new government’s willingness to say no to the United States.
The country’s defense ministry confirmed this morning what had been expected since the election victory of the prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama – that Japan will withdraw its naval forces from the Indian Ocean in January after eight-years in support of anti-terrorism operations.
The announcement comes six days before the visit to Japan of the US defense secretary, Robert Gates, and a month before that of President Barack Obama, and underlines the new tone adopted by Mr Hatoyama’s centre-left government in its dealings with the US…
Filed under: Russia / Caucacus, War | Tags: china, medvedev, nuclear, obama, oil, putin, russia, sco, War
There are several developments coming out of the Russian Federation: calls for a new European Security Plan, moving away for dollar denominated trading, persistent rejection of Iranian sanctions and preparing for military engagement on multiple fronts. Here are some articles detailing some of these recent developments.
Yahoo! News: Russia uses ambiguity to boost its power
Space War: ‘Too early’ to focus on Iran sanctions: Putin
Asia Times: Putin lays down the law for Clinton
RIA Novosti: Russia ready to abandon dollar in oil, gas trade with China
Space War: Russia to adopt first strike nuclear policy
Remember the U.S has several plans put into operation under Bush that are similar to this. Check out the 2002 Nuclear Policy Review and it’s discussion of “adaptive nuclear capabilities” or COMPLAN 8022, reported by Washington Post writer William Arkin.
Global Research: Russia Renews Call For Multipolar World, New European Security System
Russia is currently reaching out to the European community in a concerted effort to boost their prestige and friendlier relations without the assistance of the United States as an intermediary.
Filed under: China / SE Asia, Russia / Caucacus, War | Tags: afghanistan, fraud, mcchrystal, NATO, nobel, obama, peace, War
Wall Street Journal: Afghanistan: Top Troop Request Exceeds 60,000
Yahoo: Obama approved 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan
Global Research: October Surprise: Peace Prize to a War Criminal
Check out this article–it’s an excellent summary of the dizzying hypocrisy involved in Obama receiving what amounts to an modern oligarchical title of nobility. Remember that the nomination deadline for the Nobel Prize was only 1 month into Obama’s administration, when even less had done towards the advancement of the peace issue (if that’s possible).
Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War becomes Peace, When the Lie becomes the Truth
by Michel Chossudovsky
When war becomes peace,
When concepts and realities are turned upside down,
When fiction becomes truth and truth becomes fiction.
When a global military agenda is heralded as a humanitarian endeavor,
When the killing of civilians is upheld as “collateral damage”,
When those who resist the US-NATO led invasion of their homeland are categorized as “insurgents” or “terrorists”.
When preemptive nuclear war is upheld as self defense.
When advanced torture and “interrogation” techniques are routinely used to “protect peacekeeping operations”,
When tactical nuclear weapons are heralded by the Pentagon as “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”
When three quarters of US personal federal income tax revenues are allocated to financing what is euphemistically referred to as “national defense”
When the Commander in Chief of the largest military force on planet earth is presented as a global peace-maker,
When the Lie becomes the Truth
Filed under: Empire, Middle East, Russia / Caucacus, War | Tags: china, iran, medvedev, nuclear, obama, putin, russia, War
The Russians understand that the U.S is attempting to placate them into supporting new sanctions by offering hollow conciliations like the “moving” of European missile shields and the EU recognizing Georgia as the aggressors of the 2008 conflict— and thus far they are not participating.
Space War: Washington readies fresh Iran sanction
The United States is ready to slap fresh sanctions on Iran in the event international negotiations over its suspected nuclear weapons program fail, a senior US Treasury Department official said Tuesday…
At the same hearing, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said efforts to rally other veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council behind fresh sanctions, most notably Russia and China, were making progress.
“The Russians seem to be more open to additional sanctions,” Steinberg said pointing to recent comments made by President Dmitry Medvedev.
“You’re seeing a coming together of countries around the world to recognize that this is Iran’s last opportunity and if they fail to take it there is a greater openness to this.
Washington Times: Russia resisting Iran sanctions
Russian FM Lavrov: “At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process,” he told reporters at a joint news conference with Clinton. “Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” …
….U.S. officials said they were disappointed that Lavrov had come out against even the threat of new penalties.
AP: Russian general challenges US on missiles
Pressing Russia’s position on another prickly issue, Shvaichenko criticized plans aired during the Bush administration to fit some U.S. strategic missiles with conventional non-nuclear warheads, saying the launch of such missiles could provoke a mistaken nuclear strike in retaliation.
A state that detected such a missile heading in its direction “would determine the risk it faced according to a worst-case scenario,” RIA Novosti quoted Shvaichenko as saying — meaning that it would likely respond with nuclear weapons. He said such a shift “would seriously undermine … international security as a whole.”
Filed under: Technology, War | Tags: ai, china, cyber, nano, obama, robotics, russia, space, transhumanist, War
Clearly the focus of the U.S military is the increased technological development of electronic weaponry and other offensive and defensive capabilities which will offer them a decided advantage in the conflicts of the future–those to be fought in traditional arenas as well as those to be fought in space and cyberspace. For years technological development for use in military operations have centered around cybernetics, robotics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, cognitive science and other paradigm shifting possibilities. But, while H-plussers and transhumanist ideologues salivate about the possibilities of enhanced cognition and an extropian future, the U.S military establishment are developing these radical technologies for overwhelming destructive purposes and to be used in the prosecution of operations designed to promote continued “full spectrum dominance.” But of course it’s only to protect soldiers from IED’s.
Space War:US Army’s Electronic Warfare Needs Receive Heightened Emphasis
Independent (UK):Threat of next world war may be in cyberspace: UN
“…they will be versed in a much more complex challenge of controlling the electromagnetic environment in land warfare by tactical employment of the three major EW tenets: electronic attack, electronic protection, and electronic warfare support – to gain an advantage in support of tactical and operational objectives across the full spectrum of operations.”
Duty Now For The Future 